>> president chiu: good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting of tuesday, december 4, 2012. madam clerk, could you please call the roll. >> clerk calvillo: supervisor av logs, present. supervisor campos, present. president chiu, present. supervisor chu, present.

supervisor cohen, present. supervisor elsbernd, present. supervisor ferrell, present. supervisor kim, absent. supervisor mar, present. supervisor olague, present. supervisor wiener, present. mr. president, you have a quorum. >> president chiu: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join us in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the united states of america to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> president chiu: colleagues, we have october 16, 2012 board meeting minutes. could i have a motion to approve. motion by supervisor campos, suggested by supervisor chu. those are approved. madam clerk, are there any communications? >> clerk calvillo: there are no communications.

>> president chiu: could you read the consent agenda. >> clerk calvillo: items 1 through 12 are considered routine. if a member would like to discuss an item it shall be removed and considered separately. >> president chiu: would anyone like to sever any of these items? roll call vote on items 1 through 12. >> clerk calvillo: supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, absent. there are 10 ayes. >> president chiu: those ordinances are finally passed, motions approved. madam clerk -- colleagues, if it's okay -- supervisor kim just arrived. if you could call item 13. >> clerk calvillo: an ordinance appropriating approximately 2.7 million of

state reserves for the san francisco unified school district for fiscal year 2012-13. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. we're working on drafting additional amendments to this ordinance so could we continue this to a later portion of this meeting? >> president chiu: without objection, we will continue it to later in the meeting. why don't we call item 14. >> clerk calvillo: an ordinance amending the police code to prohibit nudity on public streets, sidewalks, street medians and public rights of way, and stops except as permitted in parades and festivals. >> president chiu: discussion? roll call vote. >> clerk calvillo: item 14, supervisor mar, no. supervisor olague, no. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, no. supervisor campos, no. president chiu, aye.

supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. there are seven ayes and four nos. >> president chiu: the ordinance is finally passed. item -- colleagues, i ask that we temporarily recess this meeting. >> (meeting is in recess. )

>> president chiu: let's resume our meeting. madam clerk, could you please call item 15. >> clerk calvillo: item 15 is an ordinance amending the building code to reduce square footage requirement for efficiency requirements pursuant to california health and safety code. did you want me to read item 18? >> president chiu: yes. >> clerk calvillo: an ordinance amending planning code regarding efficiency units in open space requirements. >> president chiu: colleagues, unless there's discussion, let's take a roll call vote on these two items. >> clerk calvillo: on items 15 and 18, supervisor mar, aye, olague, no. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, no. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye.

supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. there are nine ayes and two nos. >> president chiu: the ordinance is finally passed. next item. >> the clerk: item 16 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to monitor san francisco's housing preservation and production policies and goals and making the requisite findings. >> supervisor chiu: roll call vote. >> clerk calvillo: item 16, supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president chiu: the ordinance is finally passed. supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: thank

you, president chiu. i would like a motion to rescind item 18. i accidently voted in favor of the cap last week and am willing to do that this week but i will keep my vote on the current -- on the current on no. 15. 18, if we could rescind the vote and revote on that. >> president chiu: colleagues, a motion to rescind the vote on item 18. is there a second? seconded by supervisor chu. without objection that vote is rescinded. let's take a roll call vote on item 18. >> clerk calvillo: on item 18, supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye.

supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. >> clerk calvillo: there are 11 ayes. >> president chiu: that ordinance is finally passed. >> clerk calvillo: item 17 an ordinance amending the planning code adding a new section to increase transit development fee rates, revise exemptions and credits and verify implementation and collection. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: colleagues, today we have before us the required five year renewal and refresh of the transit impact development fee, tidf. this is legally required every five years and we are approximately one year past due on it so we need to enact this legislation. tidf is a critical funding of san francisco. it recognizes when real estate occurs that exacerbates that puts traffic and strain on muni the developer should pay an impact fee that supports transit. we've always imposed that fee on

for-profit enterprises but unlike other development fees we provided blanket exemptions to nonprofits like hospitals, university camposes, major museums and large private schools. no matter what their impact, they don't pay any of the fee. right now, as a small business builds a new building, depending on the size it pays, if a high school or private does so and generates more traffic it pays nothing. the update acknowledges a transit fee is not wander for each and -- warranted for each and every -- by way of contact as i think you know our public transportation system in it san francisco is dramatically underfunded. we have 420 million in the deferred vehicle maintenance, vehicles break down, we don't have any spare light rail vehicles. seemingly unending signal and

switch failures. muni riders see this every day. packed trains, broken doors, buses that don't arrive, flows of commuter walking down market street like last night because of yet another subway meltdown. this is muni right now. chronically underfunded with decades of underinvestment and maintenance and infrastructure and we are paying the price in a very big way. according to spur, we have a $is00 million -- 100 million annual operating deficit structure and the need will grow over time. we have a growing population and growing transit needs. we are supposedly a transit first city where we want people out of their cars. not only do we need to shore up what we have we need to expand service significantly. now, funding is not muni's only challenge. we need continued work reform, salary efficiencies, implementation of the transit effectiveness project, and mta

is moving in a good direction in those areas. but muni's chronic severe underfunding is a key part of muni's challenges. we're at a crossroads in san francisco in terms of investing in our system, and to be frank, we're not meeting that challenge. and what i seen is that when it comes to any funding place, muni loses. it is not high on city hall's priority list for funding. and hundreds of thousands of people who rely on muni every day lose as a result. we see this in various ways, for example the free muni for youth debate is one example. the school district reduced its own transportation program and the city decided to make up for that cut by providing free transit. and where did that money come from? it came directly out of muni, not from another source, not from the general fund, it maim from muni.

sfpd niedz funding for traffic enforcement, muni paid for it. we have opportunity to stop muni subsidizing large traffic impacting development in san francisco. colleagues i urge you to join me in supporting this critical muni funding. now when i'm done with my remarks today supervisor elsbernd will offer an amendment to reinstate the blanket nonprofit exemption which has been removed from the legislation before you today. so that large -- even large institutions like hospitals and large schools can continue to have a blanket exemption from these fees. i acknowledge that amendment is likely to pass. i don't agree with it. why would the board of supervisors support a blanket exemption to allow even the largest nonprofit development to avoid paying transit impact fees. unlike any other fee. let's talk about the legislation and the proposed elimination of

a blanket exemption. this legislation went through a lengthy planning and mta process for a period of years. when it came to the board, i along with supervisor olague and mayor lee took over sponsorship a number of months ago. shortly after that, there were some concerns raised by the hospital council, which had not -- did not want hospitals to pay the impact fee. chamber of commerce got involved, and other nonprofits got involved, even a number who, to my knowledge, have never and will never do real estate development or pay tidf. there were quite a few misunderstandings about what tidf was and wasn't. some nonprofits thought it was an annual tax. some thought it was remodeling for earthquake retrofits. it is not. there is an assertion the city will end up paying this from other departments because of nonprofits who are funded by the

city. i don't believe that to be the case since the city, other than affordable housing, does not typically fund capital work by nonprofits and affordable housing is not included in the tidf. over the past three months, i have continued this item four times in order to address these concerns, to talk through the issues, to answer questions, and to have dialogue. i, and others, have engaged in innumerable meetings with individual nonprofits, groups of nonprofits, with the chamber of commerce, with the hospital council, to address the concerns particularly relating to smaller and mid-sized nonprofit projects, in order to address that concern, i offered a very significant compromise of an exemption for nonprofit projects up to 25,000 square feet. to put that in context the office max on hairsson street -- harrison street is approximately 25,000 feet, that is a large building.

unfortunately the response i got back was not positive and was an indication that the opponents did not want to negotiate on this at all. there was a firm adherence to a full exemption, even for the largest nonprofit real estate developments with significant traffic and transit impacts. the opposition culminated in a letter that you received, colleagues, with a return address to the chamber of commerce, and signed by a number of nonprofits as well. this blanket opposition in my view is very unfortunate and does a disservice to good transit policy in san francisco. i don't have any illusions as i noted about the result of today's vote. the support appears to be there to reinstate the blanket nonprofit exemption, even for large developments. no one has been able to explain to me why this blanket exemption is warranted and why transit should be treated differently in san francisco which nonprofits

pay. we see intense lobbying effort on this between the chamber of commerce and hospital on one hand and the human network and nonprofits on the other. and once again muni funding loses. i want to thank the san francisco bike coalition, walk sf, transform, the transit riders union, rescue muni and other advocates for their staunch support on ensuring all transit impacting developments, including large nonprofit profits pay this impact fee. with all that said i want to know that we also have currently in an eir the transit sustainability project which i am also cosponsoring with supervisor olague and mayor lee. we had a meeting last week, the mayor and i, with a number of nonprofits and transit advocates, and we all committed to each other that over the next year, we're going to work very closely together in a very collaborative and transparent

way to enact psp, which will replace the tidf. and so i want to just reiterate to those folks who don't agree with me on this that i continue to be very committed to that. we intend to start convening meetings in january, and i look forward to that process. now, two quick things. first, we distributed technical amendments, which i believe are non-controversial, to the tidf before supervisor elsbernd offers his amendment. and i would ask that we accept those amendments. i also want to invite the mta to come up. and i think - think -- ramos fre board of directors is here on behalf of the department. i would like to ask director ramos to explain the importance of the tidf for transit funding in san francisco. director ramos. >>